EmarationRemediate in the order that retires the most legal risk first.
Public K-12 districts and community colleges face thousands of pages and tiny IT teams. This estimator ranks your accessibility findings by enforcement exposure — how likely a defect is to trigger an OCR complaint or DOJ action, weighted by who it blocks, where it lives, and how widespread it is — and pairs each with a defensible remediation-hours range.
Not sold today — the ADA Title II risk estimator is not one of the three offers we sell. The estimator runs on this site today. What we sell today is on the pricing page.
It ranks exposure; it does not issue a "compliant" verdict. The output is a dated, good-faith measurement as of the report date — never legal advice.
Two pure engines, grounded in the case record
Enforcement-risk ranking
Every finding is scored 0–100 and tiered (critical / high / moderate / low) from a fully decomposed formula: enforcement frequency, assistive-tech impact, content scope, and reach, scaled by the most severe WCAG level and bumped for DOJ-named barriers. The enforcement ordering — PDFs > captions > alt text > forms/keyboard > contrast/color-only > LMS — is the observed frequency order in the OCR/DOJ record, not a guess.
Remediation-hours estimate
Counted backlogs become a defensible effort range (min / typical / max), priced per PDF page and per video-minute where that — not the document count — drives the work. Every assumption (pages per PDF, minutes per video, the volume-efficiency curve) is returned so a human reviewer can adjust it per engagement.
How the score is built
exposure = 0.35·enforcement + 0.25·userImpact + 0.25·scope + 0.15·reach
score(0–100) = round( 100 · clamp01( exposure · legalSeverity + dojBarrierBump ) )
Tiers: score ≥ 75 critical · ≥ 55 high · ≥ 35 moderate · else low. Every weight is a documented, tunable constant, and every assessment carries its factor breakdown plus a sourced rationale — so a reviewer and counsel can audit each number.
What it will not do
Never fabricate
An unknown finding type or invalid count is refused, not guessed. Every finding cites a real WCAG success criterion with provenance and detector confidence.
Flag exceptions, never apply them
A possible 28 CFR 35.201 exception is recorded for a human/counsel determination — it does not silently change the score or exclude a finding.
Counted ≠ passing
PDFs, media, and manual-required checks are reported as "not yet assessed", never as "passing". Low detector confidence flags verification — it never down-ranks a real risk.